It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
If the WTC7 was demolished by the government or military, it should have been wired up already previously, and there should be a secret plan of it. But we all forget, that this entire attack was a huge stress to just every person in the civilized world... what do I mean? Just that anybody who may know of the deliberate demolition of WTC7, would have come forward with the whole plan, already long ago. It would not have been kept secret, at all. By this point, I also assume that if any part of the 911 attacks were related to the government's responsibility, it would be brought to public, too. The US government is not representing cruelty and hatred, it rejects any suspicion of manipulation. If the attack would take place in Russia for example, mobody would know anything about it for weeks or months. Same thing with China.




posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Heh heh, I was trying to make this point earlier in this thread.. but I was quickly drowned out by the masses of conspiracy talks and the so-called "facts" so I just gave up. I think someone even went as far to say that the "top secret" floors in wtc7 were rigged with explosives but the others werent..

Ever wonder why the govt doesnt talk about conspiracies? Because theres nothing to debate. It happened this way, and the govt has better things to do other then sitting around arguing with people that "know the truth"

Sorry for the interuption, continue to fantasize.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Yeah, those CIA floors ©…

Probably, that secret vanished forever. But I start to believe, that the reason of the WTC7 collapse was to destroy everything there…



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Just that anybody who may know of the deliberate demolition of WTC7, would have come forward with the whole plan, already long ago. It would not have been kept secret, at all. By this point, I also assume that if any part of the 911 attacks were related to the government's responsibility, it would be brought to public, too.

Exactly. No one person on this world could or would participate in the killing of innocent lives for the "gain of billions of dollars in govt military funds".

The rigging of a building for demolition would take a large group of people. Hell, the transporting of all this demoshing equipment alone would set off eye witnesses all over the building(s). The planning of flying planes into people would take a large group of people. The smuggling of terrorists for fall guys would take a large group of people. The firing of "cruise missles" at the pentagon would require an entire naval ship.

And no one person ever came forward?

Or maybe all this is a result of a terrorist group that planned this instead of a brilliant idea of G.W Bush that was planned and execute in under 8 months?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I agree with you Dakota, that is why I used the photo you showed. I guess all of the employess just went over and around all of that wiring while they were still working there. Better yet, the building was built with the explosives in place because they knew that they would have to bring it down at a later date.

Every demolition company in the world does it the same way. The inside of the building is gutted and wires are all over the place and it takes quite a bit of time before the building is ready for implosion.

This thread is getting pretty old, the naysayers have one so-called "documentary" that is pretty weak to lean on, but that is what they are doing.

Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up and the inside of the building is basically destroyed beforehand. I can't figure out why that is so hard for these people to understand.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Because that's the norm in history, right? People in power taking care of everybody and always telling the truth and never having ulterior motives. Never. And when confronted with this obviously bunk information they always do a great job of covering the facts. Always. Despite the fact that 19 hijackers were able to get on planes without showing boarding passes and especially not leaving any fingerprints on those boarding passes. Never mind the FACT that the FBI has even admitted that the identities of at least 7 of the 19 are seriously in doubt. Let's just keep referring to "the 19" as "The 19" for continuity sake. What do ya say? Trust what is repeated most often. The people telling you what to think love you. Just trust them.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by roxdog]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   


Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up and the inside of the building is basically destroyed beforehand. I can't figure out why that is so hard for these people to understand.

No you're right, it's easier to believe that you can smelt steel with subsmelting temperatures than to actually use your brain.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Roxdog, what are your comments on the proof that was provided about the amount of work that needs to be done to a building prior to detonating it?

We weren't talking about the 19 hijackers, so don't try changing the subject again. We are waiting for your comment on the proof that was provided.

Edit: Roxdog, it doesn't take smelting temps to weaken the steel.

[edit on 7-18-2004 by nyarlathotep]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Roxdog, what are your comments on the proof that was provided about the amount of work that needs to be done to a building prior to detonating it?

We weren't talking about the 19 hijackers, so don't try changing the subject again. We are waiting for your comment on the proof that was provided.

Edit: Roxdog, it doesn't take smelting temps to weaken the steel.

[edit on 7-18-2004 by nyarlathotep]

What proof? How is your question "proof"?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I showed you pictures and text from demolition companies stating what must be done to a building prior to it be imploded, or didn't you read that part?

Is that not proof enough for you, or as you so eloquently put, are you not using your brain?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Thanks for that letter Roxdog, at least it is something else. However, how and when was the building rigged with explosives? Have you seen what needs to be done to a building before it is brought down by controlled explosions? The building is literally gutted out and wires are all over the place for the rigged explosives. When would this have been done? Te building would not come down with a couple of sticks of dynamite thrown into basement.

This is a picture from earlier in the thread.



In order to bring a building down, it must be rigged like this. When was all this done?

Here is some more on the amount of work need to be done before the building is brought down:

While it only takes about four seconds to detonate all of the charges to drop a building, it usually takes months of work to prepare the blast.

It doesn't take a lot of explosives to blow out a pillar or wall section. There are, however, hundreds of these small shots involved in a single elevator blast. Our largest shot involved two elevators, the "D" . house and the "D" west annex. In less than eight seconds, both elevators were destroyed with a total of roughly 800 separate small shots.


Taken from here

This was a smaller building that WTC 7 and it took 800 of these charges to be in place by drilling holes in the concrete. Again, when was this done?







Since you don't read the whole thread Roxdog, I thought I would quote my entire post for you to read. How is that not proof?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Actually, WTC7 was demolished… but how? I heard in the news on 911 2001 that WTC7 is fatally injured, and it is about to fall, it needs to be evacuated… while the building was still standing. The next day I heard the news, that WTC7 collapsed. Interesting, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Yeah, I saw that. How is that proof? All it does is ask more questions and answer none.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Roxdog, the only "proof" you have shown is this "documentary. I have shown several things including what the official cause was as well as what is needed to be done to a building prior to it being imploded.

I feel like I am arguing with a child, there is no point. Go a. and keep fantasizing about the whole ordeal and continue to use your "documentary" as backup. I have better things to do.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog
Yeah, I saw that. How is that proof? All it does is ask more questions and answer none.


The question you then should be asking yourself is how could the building be rigged for implosion in a couple of hours or if it was rigged beforehand, how was it done with no one knowing?

I figured that would have been enough because anyone "using their brain" would have figure that either is impossible.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Here's a quote from an Engineer:




You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.


To debunk your "little itty bitty fires" caused by the diesel fuel that were stored inside the building to run the emergency power generators.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Double post

[edit on 18-7-2004 by rwsdakota]



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Um, no, like I said before this is one tiny piece. Gulliani got a call (as quoted by ABC news) while he was in building 7 to get out because tower one and two were gonna fall. Any idea who called him or why it wasn't covered in the commission? How did they know the towers were going to fall (no steel structure in history has ever collapsed due to fire)? Why didn't they tell the firefighters and police that were charging into the buildings? Let me guess, the "radios malfuntioned"? Nope, the radio transcripts were released by the firefighters to the press. You can listen to them.
www.thememoryhole.org...
www.thememoryhole.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The fires didnt start in WTC7 until after the first tower fell. The order to pull out of tower 7 was called AFTER wtc1 fell and wtc2 was expected to fall.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Roxdog: Can I suggest you something? Make a search, and find that proof, and be sure that your opinion is the best about this WTC collapse.

I will alwasy remain at the WTC UFO theory, and I feel, that it is well backed up at my point of view.

I disagree with the facts/documents, whatever, that the government took any role in the 911 events, but I do believe, that they are hiding so many things about these events, that the population has the right to see.

Still, there is no reasonable answer to how the WTC7 collapsed, and why? I think, there is no answer to that currently…



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join